kallend 1,623 #576 June 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou wrote: "There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing." That is simply incorrect. Stick to your neolithic belief system, you clearly are unqualified to comment on physics.Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning. You might just want to check more carefully on Hawking's recent comments on the subject before continuing to make an ass of yourself. Hawking in fact was one of the first to point out that quantum mechanics forbids a singularity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #577 June 20, 2011 Interesting article on the EVOLUTION of the eye in this month's Scientific American. Creationist morons should read it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #578 June 20, 2011 Quote Interesting article on the EVOLUTION of the eye in this month's Scientific American. Creationist morons should read it. The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design by: Jerry Bergman, June 8, 2011 Charles Darwin wrote in Origin of Species that, with regard to the human eye being developed by natural selection “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” ADDED: Added: I’m guessing THIS is the article you were referring to in Scientific American. The title reads, “Evolution of the Eye Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be.” It is amazing how just about every year, it seems, the evolutionists come up with a new miraculous discovery making it “clear now” and “beyond dispute” how things came to be. Then….inevitably…they change their mind…or have to reexamine…recalculate…or even completely retract what often times has been shown to be complete hogwash or even a hoax (e.g. piltdown man). It’s the “science of speculation.” It changes with the wind. But….as stated above…they now have a “clear vision.” It’s all cleared up now… Except…there seem to be more and more PROBLEMS “Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot - Need for a “new paradigm” in bird evolution” by Michael Matthews, AiG–US March 13, 2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #579 June 20, 2011 QuoteQuote Interesting article on the EVOLUTION of the eye in this month's Scientific American. Creationist morons should read it. The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design by: Jerry Bergman, June 8, 2011 Charles Darwin wrote in Origin of Species that, with regard to the human eye being developed by natural selection “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” ADDED: Added: I’m guessing THIS is the article you were referring to in Scientific American. The title reads, “Evolution of the Eye Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be.” It is amazing how just about every year, it seems, the evolutionists come up with a new miraculous discovery making it “clear now” and “beyond dispute” how things came to be. Then….inevitably…they change their mind…or have to reexamine…recalculate…or even completely retract what often times has been shown to be complete hogwash or even a hoax (e.g. piltdown man). It’s the “science of speculation.” It changes with the wind. But….as stated above…they now have a “clear vision.” It’s all cleared up now… Except…there seem to be more and more PROBLEMS “Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot - Need for a “new paradigm” in bird evolution” by Michael Matthews, AiG–US March 13, 2003 Science, of course, makes progress, generates new knowledge, and corrects its own errors. Unlike neolithic creation myths. "More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #580 June 20, 2011 >The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design . . . And evidence of bad design. Our retinas are backwards; the 'wiring' for them is in front, the light sensitive cells are behind the wiring. That's why we have blind spots, and that's why in mammals detached retinas are common. Compare that to octopus eyes, which have the wiring behind and the light sensitive cells closest to the surface. Works a lot better overall. So why are our eyes designed that way? Because at some point during our evolution, they worked well ENOUGH. That's the only thing evolution selects for - systems that work well enough to let organisms survive. Indeed, the human eye is one of the best demonstrations that we evolved, rather than were designed. The article you quote lists ways that our brains overcome the disadvantages that our backwards retinas pose, and that is indeed true; we have adapted to those problems. That is an argument FOR evolution coming up with additional solutions to problems posed by other parts of the body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #581 June 20, 2011 Quote>The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design . . . And evidence of bad design. Our retinas are backwards; the 'wiring' for them is in front, the light sensitive cells are behind the wiring. That's why we have blind spots, and that's why in mammals detached retinas are common. Compare that to octopus eyes, which have the wiring behind and the light sensitive cells closest to the surface. Works a lot better overall. So why are our eyes designed that way? Because at some point during our evolution, they worked well ENOUGH. That's the only thing evolution selects for - systems that work well enough to let organisms survive. Indeed, the human eye is one of the best demonstrations that we evolved, rather than were designed. The article you quote lists ways that our brains overcome the disadvantages that our backwards retinas pose, and that is indeed true; we have adapted to those problems. That is an argument FOR evolution coming up with additional solutions to problems posed by other parts of the body. Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? By: Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. and Joseph Calkins, M.D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #582 June 20, 2011 QuoteIt is amazing how just about every year, it seems, the evolutionists come up with a new miraculous discovery making it “clear now” and “beyond dispute” how things came to be. Evolution, as a whole, is a vast and incredibly complex sphere os science. What would be genuinely amazing is if there was an announcement that we now had it all figured out, all questions were answered, and we'd managed to research every single strand of inquiry down to the smallest level of detail. See, the problem with you people is that you don't seem to have any understanding of just how fucking complicated and just how fucking hard it is to do genuine scientific research. You think that some guys going "Hey, what if the speed of light was both infinite and only 1/2 of c?" "Sounds good, print it!" "Hey, what if the grand canyon formed in a month?" "Sounds good, print it!" is science. It's not. Science is a process of refinement. You have a question, you experiment, you examine results, from the results you get a new question, you do new experiments, you get new results, from there you get another question... Sometimes there are revolutions, sometimes there are groundbreaking developments, but almost always it's a process of chipping away and chipping away and chipping away. So when you here of a new discovery being reported it does not mean that what was being said before was wrong, it does not mean that evolutionary theory has fundamentally changed - it's just that a little more detail has been added, that on some small spot on the vast framework of evolution another layer of knowledge has been added. That you could expect it to work any differently shows only your ignorance of how real scientific knowledge is gained.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #583 June 20, 2011 QuoteIs the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?. YES, for reasons already cited. Notwithstanding garbage pseudo-science put out by the Institute for Creation Research (oxymoron if ever there was one).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #584 June 20, 2011 >Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? Yes. Claiming that the problems with the mammalian retina are actually a good thing because of our adaptions to its problems is like claiming that the Nova was a good parachute design because all skydivers have reserves. We have lots of those - design features that would either indicate poor design or gradual evolution. External male genitals, toes, appendix and coccyx are other examples of structures that are either holdovers or are gradually disappearing as we evolve away from needing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #585 June 20, 2011 I just heard that Coreece got banned. I'm finding that hard to believe and very hypocritical seeing as how many arrogant insulting asses are still here. Ridiculous! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #586 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing. Type this phrase into Google: "theory prior to big bang", and get back to me on that. QuoteThere is at best, total guess work and imagination, all of which are no better (and I'd argue, are worse) than believing in the concept of some sort of Divine. You have the right to that opinion. I have the right to think that believing in the Divine is much, much worse that trying to figure it out for ourselves. Feel free to rise t the challenge then as well. As I said before: "But hey, I'll fully admit I don't know everything out there in physics. So I'll humbly give you the chance to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject. Just give me one experiment done, just one, that involved Pre BB and/or other universes. Nothing fancy is needed, but I'm curious about the basic details: What was their hypothesis? What was the experiment? What did they predict would happen? How was the experiment conducted? What sort of results would have disproved their hypothesis? What results did they get? How do those results show validity to their hypothesis? You know, standard scientific type stuff. As I do love learning anything and everything about the Universe, I eagerly await your reply on the matter." With no experiment, no observational data, predictions, and way to falsify, all these theories are theories in the loosest sense, and certainly does not carry the weight of a real scientific theory (Gravity, Relativity, Evolution, etc). So you and kallend can keep pointing to google all you want in a vain attempt to split hairs, it doesn't change the fact that the guesses at pre-BB have nothing to go on. At least, I should qualify I suppose, they are no more valid then saying, "Maybe our universe was spawned by the flying spaghetti monster who, at times likes to create seas of rigatoni universes (in a nice garlic sauce) and dances through each universe cycle to Little Richard's Long Tall Sally" You're certainly free to believe that, or anything else. But don't be insulting about it, nor try and pass those beliefs as rooted in actual science. They're not. They're rooted in desire and fantasy.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #587 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou wrote: "There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing." That is simply incorrect. Stick to your neolithic belief system, you clearly are unqualified to comment on physics.Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning. You might just want to check more carefully on Hawking's recent comments on the subject before continuing to make an ass of yourself. Hawking in fact was one of the first to point out that quantum mechanics forbids a singularity. So you've got no experiment for me eh? Not surprised.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #588 June 21, 2011 Einstein developed the theories of special and general relativity before the equipment to test them was invented. He used what he called thought experiments, and a shit ton of math. Just because the theories weren't immediately verified by scientific experiments (as they have now been) didn't make them less scientific. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #589 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou wrote: "There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing." That is simply incorrect. Stick to your neolithic belief system, you clearly are unqualified to comment on physics.Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning. You might just want to check more carefully on Hawking's recent comments on the subject before continuing to make an ass of yourself. Hawking in fact was one of the first to point out that quantum mechanics forbids a singularity. So you've got no experiment for me eh? Not surprised. Make up your mind, theory or experiment? You show a lot of intellectual dishonesty for someone who claims to be a chaplain. Why continue demonstrating that you are unqualified to write on this subject? Experiments verifying the predictions of quantum theory have shown the theory to be accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #590 June 21, 2011 Quote>Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? Yes. Claiming that the problems with the mammalian retina are actually a good thing because of our adaptions to its problems is like claiming that the Nova was a good parachute design because all skydivers have reserves. We have lots of those - design features that would either indicate poor design or gradual evolution. External male genitals, toes, appendix and coccyx are other examples of structures that are either holdovers or are gradually disappearing as we evolve away from needing them. It really doesn't matter whether the design is good or not. We now have proof that the eye is NOT "irreducibly complex", yet another nail in the coffin of intelligent design.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #591 June 21, 2011 Quote It really doesn't matter whether the design is good or not. We now have proof that the eye is NOT "irreducibly complex", yet another nail in the coffin of intelligent design. "Irreducibly coplex" was always just such a weak God of the Gaps theory from the get go. Philosophically to state that there is not other explanation than that the eye was designed would mean that humans were capable of imagining (and then some way verifiably testing) every single possible way the eye could come into being. Pretty much goes for intelligent design as a whole--weak philosophically to the point of not being worthy of debate."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #592 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuote It really doesn't matter whether the design is good or not. We now have proof that the eye is NOT "irreducibly complex", yet another nail in the coffin of intelligent design. "Irreducibly coplex" was always just such a weak God of the Gaps theory from the get go. Philosophically to state that there is not other explanation than that the eye was designed would mean that humans were capable of imagining (and then some way verifiably testing) every single possible way the eye could come into being. Pretty much goes for intelligent design as a whole--weak philosophically to the point of not being worthy of debate. Indeed, then there's the question of why an omnipotent omniscient god would recycle design features from fish and amphibians into her pinnacle of creation, the human. She must have been tired after creating a universe in 6 days, prolly wanted to go out for a beer with her boygodfriend so she took a few short cuts. Nipples on men indeed!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #593 June 21, 2011 QuoteIndeed, then there's the question of why an omnipotent omniscient god would recycle design features from fish and amphibians into her pinnacle of creation, the human. She must have been tired after creating a universe in 6 days, prolly wanted to go out for a beer with her boygodfriend so she took a few short cuts. Nipples on men indeed! And why would He create someone who would do nothing but spend his entire life being rebellious, arrogant, and ungrateful towards Him, hating and cursing Him with every breath? And yet, would die for that person anyway... Amazing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #594 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteIndeed, then there's the question of why an omnipotent omniscient god would recycle design features from fish and amphibians into her pinnacle of creation, the human. She must have been tired after creating a universe in 6 days, prolly wanted to go out for a beer with her boygodfriend so she took a few short cuts. Nipples on men indeed! And why would He create someone who would do nothing but spend his entire life being rebellious, arrogant, and ungrateful towards Him, hating and cursing Him with every breath? And yet, would die for that person anyway... Amazing! Retarded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #595 June 21, 2011 QuoteRetarded. I expect such a response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
david3 0 #596 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteIndeed, then there's the question of why an omnipotent omniscient god would recycle design features from fish and amphibians into her pinnacle of creation, the human. She must have been tired after creating a universe in 6 days, prolly wanted to go out for a beer with her boygodfriend so she took a few short cuts. Nipples on men indeed! And why would He create someone who would do nothing but spend his entire life being rebellious, arrogant, and ungrateful towards Him, hating and cursing Him with every breath? And yet, would die for that person anyway... Amazing! That did not happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #597 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteRetarded. I expect such a response. Characterize your invisible friend as a moron and you should expect it to be treated as such. If you are going to hang out with make-believe entities, you could do a lot better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #598 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteIndeed, then there's the question of why an omnipotent omniscient god would recycle design features from fish and amphibians into her pinnacle of creation, the human. She must have been tired after creating a universe in 6 days, prolly wanted to go out for a beer with her boygodfriend so she took a few short cuts. Nipples on men indeed! And why would He create someone who would do nothing but spend his entire life being rebellious, arrogant, and ungrateful towards Him, hating and cursing Him with every breath? And yet, would die for that person anyway... Amazing! There is no evidence to support any of what you are saying, so no it's not amazing. It's just plain not remotely believable. On the other hand the theory evolution has a lot evidence to support it and it's constantly being tested and changed as new evidence is found. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #599 June 21, 2011 That's funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
david3 0 #600 June 21, 2011 QuoteThat's funny. No, this is funny. QuoteAnd why would He create someone who would do nothing but spend his entire life being rebellious, arrogant, and ungrateful towards Him, hating and cursing Him with every breath? And yet, would die for that person anyway... Amazing! jaybird18c Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
